Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?

What about the main issue ?Does the herpes virus issue become a decisive one in regards to legitimacy of homosexual marriage ?Does the matter hang on this detail?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think the issue of the Bible's view of gay marriage should be clear.When Jesus Christ refered to marriage in Mark 10:6-8 He used "male and female" from Genesis 1:27 and linked it with this from Genesis 2:24,25: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife; And the two shall be one flesh. Therefore what God has yoked together, let man not separate."Christ could not have meant a man shall be joined to his male "wife" because his comment's context is the creation of "male and female."It is doubtful that His exposition of Genesis 1 and 2 could mean woman should be joined in marriage to another woman.What God has yoked together is the union of a man with a woman. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I see two common missapplications of Christian theology to defend homosexuality. The first is very common. The gay apologist seeks show the unreasonableness of negating homosexuality by attaching a modern day death penalty of stoning to it.I cannot speak for any other religion like Islam. But for the follower of New Testament Christian faith there is no obbligation to stone to death ANYONE.The insinuation "Then you must stone to death gay people" does not touch the Christian at all. And I at least am not a political activist trying to establish a theocracy.Now to the second concept: The matter of "I cannot help this because I was born this way" may also be appplied to stealing, lying, gossip, fornication, pickpocketing, bullying, extortioning, backbitting, embezzelment, adultery, drunkenness, gluttony ... etc.There is no question that in man's fallen nature we are born with the propensity to do many many things transgressing the law of God. We are born into sin. And this is why we need the divine life of Christ implanted into our being from the new birth.So in the Christian theology it is a moot point that one was born with this or that sinful tendency.And we are not asked by the Gospel to overcome on our own will power for God knows that we are unable to overcome the sin nature.So we need the indwelling of Christ as well as the redemption of Christ from the guilt of our sinning.

Not only can I make the argument that I ought to be able to steal because I was born with this strong tendency to do so.I also can rationalize that my stealing hurts no one so it is not wrong.Sure, I can. In fact many times stealing happens with the rational that the person from who you are stealing REALLY doesn't need it. Or you need it much more.So both rationals can be made. That does not change the moral wrong of the stealing.It is better to come to the Savior confessing that you have this weakness that you cannot overcome and seek Him for salvation.The same would be true of homosexuality. I do not think it is helpful to be "sin centered". Our attention and focus for salvation should be on the Savior Christ.Focusing on the particular entrapping sinful behavior may tempt a man to try to free himself or justify himself.In the former case he pulls and pulls on the tight knot and it only gets tighter.In the latter case he reasons that since he cannot overcome he has to learn to live with his sin and justify it. A further step from justifying it is to revel in it with pride and exalt others who revel in it.The way to freedom from the enjoyment of sinning is to enjoy Christ instead. The enjoyment of the indwelling Savior once He has come into your heart must replace the enjoyment of sinning.The enjoyment of the indwelling of God overpowers the enjoyment of the sinning. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Before I comment further just a little personal note so you get to know me just a little bit.I have beloved family members who are in the gay lifestyle. I also lost a younger brother to HIV related complications due most likely to his involvement in the gay community in San Fransisco. He died because of the gay lifestyle.So I am not far removed from the gay community. The relatives that know me as a evangelical Christian also know me as a loving cousin and brother of family members who have long been in the gay community.Now to your comment. I think that it is not only the damage upon others which is a concern to God but the damage upon one's own self.Man was created for God's eternal purpose and homosexuality damages the spiritual , emotional, and in some cases physical vessel of the gay person him or herself.The person carried away by unbridled greedy heterosexual lust is called "an idolator" in the NT. That is one who practices the sin of idolatry. "For this you realize, knowing that every fornicator or unclean person or greedy person (who is an idolater) has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Eph. 5:5) Man is created for the kingdom of God. This idolatry damages the human vessel. As long as the human is in that situation he cannot participate in the kingdom of God. This does not mean that he or she cannot be saved. It does mean that the damage of being an idolator - replacing God with something else, obssesively, must be transformed by Christ's salvific work.When one is so obsessed that he just wants what he wants what he wants, this can become the usurping of God, the replacing of God with an idol. This idolatry damages man for God's kingdom.Now God is the Judge. We may rationalize this way and that way that we harm no other. But God knows everything. You do not know the effects of your so called private sins on the total fabric of time and human life. God knows.So I have no confidence concerning any sinful act that I could reason with God that it harms no one else. And the fact that sin harms the sinner is enough to merit forgiveness and salvation.God is longsuffering and compassionate. The Holy Spirit may even lead the sinner to submit to some professional help as well as God operates to free us from various damaging sins.He knew what we were before we were born. And He made mericiful provision for the sinner even before he was born.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I distinctly remember an early temptation and instance of stealing in my life. I recall rationalizing that it would NOT hurt the person from which I stole.Jesus said out of man's heart come "evil reasonings" which delife a man: "For out of the heart come evil reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnessings, blasphemies, these are the things which defile the man ..." (Matt. 15:19,20) If we stopped ourselves sometime and asked "Exactly WHAT am I reasoning about here?" we would realize that our sins are often preceeded with all kinds of self justifying rationals.Men reason their way into thefts, into adultery, into fornication, into many defiling transgressions. And part of this reasoning process is our convincing ourselves that no one else will be hurt. So the salvation really must start deep in the heart and in the mind. As a Christian I seek to understand the will of God. I cannot simply say "Christians say this" or "Christians say that". And I cannot point to abuses of wrong things some Christians may have said in order to rationalize not listening to conscience of the word of God.I am a typical male man. I married a pretty typical female woman with whom I have been united for 33 years. Since neither one of have the extreme view that you expouse "some Christians" may have had the question is irrelevant.And I don't recall having ever met any Christians who held such an extreme view that sex was bad period.I would say that the Apostle Paul warned that to forbid marriage was a teaching of demons. "But the Spirit says expressely that in the later times some will deapart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons... who forbid marriage ..." (See 1 Timothy 4:1-3)So I judge that the Roman Catholic practice of forbiding marriage for those seeking to serve God, is a demonin teaching. It is something of the deep things of the occult and Satan disguised in "Christian" terms.Any celibacy of a servant of God should be voluntary and not a legal restriction imposed. This is about as close as "sex is evil" that some sections of Christianity have gotten. There are probbly other extreme examples. For instance the Shakers could be considered a Christian cult. And I think the die out because they forbid marriage.I would not encourage you to regard abberational extreme views as orthodox Christian teaching. And I think the lazy way is to assume that such abberations provide a rational to dismiss all the Bible teaches on the subject matter:Ie., "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and the bed undefiled; for fornicators and adulterors God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Can you quote me where I said "HIV is a gay disease"? I don't think I wrote that. Now if you wish to jump to the conclusion that I think that that is your business.However, if you examined my post, I not only mentioned HIV complication which led to my brother's death, BUT I mentioned the contributing circumstances. He was deeply involved in the gay community in San Fransisco.Not the usage of dirty needles or any other source of the HIV. In his case it was participation in the gay community.You should not jump to conclusions so easily. I know that there are other sources of the infection.

What do you expect me to do with this kind of passage ? "If there is a man who lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination ..." (Leviticus 20:13) Even if I take a pen and change it and make it say whatever you would like it to say, somehow my conscience still says that that for a man to have sex with a man is "an abomination."Sure. I recall a certain stage of puberty when I was infatuated with another boy. I suspect that may be a stage that young men and women pass through.Now I am not a psychologist. But at present, my opinion is that homosexuality is perhaps some kind of arrested psychological development.But notice that the Levitical passage talked about a man lying with a man as with a woman. So I think it is being carried away in the imagination to perform the sex act which is the most abominable to God.It could be argued that David and Johnathan seemed to have something very intimate psychologically between them. The Bible says that Johnathan loved David as his own soul.Yet we do not see them trying to have sex with one another.Now in the New Testament what Paul lists along with other "works of the flesh" includes homosexuality. He does not explicitly mention a man lying with a man or a woman lying with a woman. I conclude at this time that even the orientation is a work of what Pauls says are "the lawless and unruly ... ungodly and sinners ... unholy and profane""And know this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers, for murders, for fornicatiors, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teaching according to gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted." (1 Tim. 1:9-11) The sin of homosexuality is listed along with other common sins there. We need to be saved from all of these damaging "orientations" through Jesus Christ. This is an issue of whether or not one regards the Bible as the word of God or not. The issue really is - Does a person want to take the Bible as the word of God or reject it as simply human opinion ?If you take it as the word of God then you should see that homosexual orientation is something men and women need Christ for a salvation from.And one should see that male on male sex is an abomination to God. The Apostle Paul in reviewing the decline of early mankind includes also this - "Therefore God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natral use for that which is contrary to nature; males, leaving the natural use of the female exchanged t he natural use for that which is contrary to nature..." (See Romans 1:24-27)He does not leave us there. He goes on to speak of the forgiveness of God in the redemption of Christ. And he goes on to elaborate on the freeing power of the indwelling Christ for sanctification.It would be a tradedy if the word of God left us with only condemnation. Thankfully it is far from doing that. And if I WERE carried away by homosexual orientation and wanted to follow the Lord Jesus, it would be on His salvation work that I would be putting my focus on.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The anus, for example, was not designed for the male phallus to be jamed up into it. This can damage the anus.And AIDS can kill you. No, I did not say only gay people get AIDS. I said AIDS can kill you. And AIDS can be contracted because of homosexual practices.Now I am surprised that you needed me to spell this out.And here are the responses I am not expecting from you or some other objector:1.) Some Phd. has now announced that male on male intercourse cannot be a source of the AIDS disease.2.) Heterosexual sex can also be physcially damaging to the body. So that makes homosexuality alright.Maybe you will surprise me with some other rational or justification. But this is the Bible Study Room. And I think the issue is what does the Bible teach about it? And some of us here regard the Bible as the divine revelation of God to man.Now one more matter I'd cover in this post. Some would say that Jesus NEVER spoke against homosexuality as Paul did.Well, this is not quite true. Jesus does mention the judgment of Sodom -He speaks of both the judgment of Sodom in the Old Testament and thier possible standing in the last Judgment. He therefore must have taken the Genesis account of Sodom's sins seriously.Notice also that Jesus said that to reject Himself would be less tolerable then the sin of Sodom. So the real issue is what will the sinner do with Jesus Christ. My purpose in refering to this verse is not to say the sins of Sodom were OK. But rather that in the total scheme of things what one does with the message of Christ the Savior and Son of God is more serious.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It seems that you are mad with me for studying the Bible here with you.

There are a few responses too many from too many people for me to keep up.I see comments that I would like to address but they seem to be coming too fast and furious.I especially object to the poster saying I wrote a diatribe. I wrote no diatribe. It may be that that poster has a need to imagine me as a hateful person spewing out diatribes.But I think I have simply and soberly studied with you here what the Bible is saying on the subject matter.And to Ringo. You have a good point. But there is the morality of the law and the ritual of the law. This seems to be a distinction that the New Testament makes.Ie. all animals are clean to be eaten, says Jesus. Yet He does not nullify the morality related to things like marriage, divorce, fornication, murder. In fact He often made these matters MORE penetrating by touching not just the ourward action but the innermost motive.For this reason it is not so easy just to reject male with male sex as no more or less serious then eating shrimp and lobster. One is a level of morality. The other is more a matter of ritual.I do not say that it is always easy to discern the difference. But it is clear that Jesus terminated some ritual aspects of the law of Moses without terminating the moral standards.You have heard it said, you shall not murder. But I say unto you ...Not a negation here but a reinforcing and an uplifting. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't think I will be able to keep up with the number of criticisms about what I wrote. I am outnumbered.At least I think subbie's comments are the more interesting to me at the moment.But here you say I have added something to the OT.Well, I am taking in the whole 66 books of the Bible as the plenary revelation of God. I don't consider using the New Testament as adding something in a wrong way to the revelation.Secondly, I suspect that you are refering to the "spirit of the law"
as a New Testament kind of concept ? If so you are also trying to understand the total picture using the New Testament.If so, you're saying that you can do so but I should not. That is not fair.Perhaps you can explain where you derive this letter Verses spirit of the law from ? Subbie - To subbie, I want to read your comments more carefully latter. I am familiar with the old view that the people of Sodom offended God because of some other reason, like not being very hospitable.I have also been familiar with the passage about Sodom's pride or idleness.At the moment I would only say that these reasons are not enough for me to remove the impact of thier homosexual activity as an offense and rebellion against God.It is quite true that other errors may have provided the atmosphere and backround for thier homosexual sins to ferment. And it is true that latter in Scripture some of those sins were mentioned by God.I cannot seriously use those passages to soften the effect of what Genesis says. God went to see of the actions of revolt against God were as seriouse as their cries against heaven indicated.I think this revolting cry up to heaven of Sodom involved thier rejection of nature's normal way of sexual attraction and activity. That is the way the Genesis story reads to me.They shook their fists against God concerning what THEY craved for in the realm of sexual pleasure.But you are right that latter the Scripture does mention the sin of their pride and complacency. Often very proud and idle people who have too much thinking to do invent evil things.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ringo, Theodoric, frako, Huntard,There are quite a few of you trying to hold my feet to the fire about whether or not the Bible has a teaching that homosexuality is an sin.I really don't think I need to say much more about this negative aspect of the matter. I wish I could from here on study the Bible here in the positive aspect of forgiveness, liberation, transformation, and conformity to the image of Christ.For the Christian the danger is that if I continue to argue and argue and argue that homosexuality in the Bible is a negative you will get the impression that there is only condemnation in the Bible. In fact some of you may adopt an attitude that I love the condemnation in the Bible.One poster vented his disgust with the Apostle Paul. I consider this to be a tragic deception on his part.The ministry of the Apostle Paul absolutely pioneers into the deepest experience of the resurrected and living Christ. It is the ministry of one EXPERIENCED in all manner of dynamic liberation from the power of that sin nature that we all were trapped with from our birth.But if I can never get to that but have to rehash again and again the transgression of the homosexual acts, some of you will only gloat that there is nothing but condemnation in my Bible.The best way for a man to love another man is Christ.
The best way for a woman to love another woman is Christ.
The best way for a man and woman to love each other is Christ.My emphasis here in studying this subject is not political or what laws on the books should be. My focus is God putting people into the realm of the living and available Christ: "But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God, both righteousness and sanctification and redemption. That as it is written, He who boasts let hm boast in the Lord." (1 Cor. 1:30,31) Since the expressed topic of this thread is "Condemn Gay Marriage, or Just Gay Rape" maybe I should stop posting to this thread, I think the condemnation part has been adaquately explained.Proof is not persuasion. I think the evidence is there in the Bible that gay marriage is condemened by God. I think the proof is there. You may simply refuse to be persuaded of it.Maybe I should go on to a thread where the more positive aspects of being put by God into the sphere and realm of Christ where Christ becomes man's righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Its a Bible Study.Any chapter I refered to was a chapter in the Bible. Why not if my position is based on good exegesis of the Bible ? Then again this could just be your attitude to reject good Bible exegesis by assigning it as my chatper of Club Christian.You probably prefer your Club Chapter of Christian Skeptic. I understand.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The OP says: Posturing looks good at least. Are you all sure you want to have contributions from Bible readers who regard the Bible as the word of God?Or is "fresh discussion" code language for "No Evangelical Christians Allowed" ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.